Kent v Surrey

If Burns can play that shot so why can't I .
Brainless batting with a few overs to go .

Atkinson did the night watchman job to perfection. He’s protected Latham. The fact he got out is immaterial.

Cee Gee wrote:Atkinson did the night watchman job to perfection. He’s protected Latham. The fact he got out is immaterial.

I think it would have been more perfect if he hadn't have played a daft shot - and got out!

Tom Latham is an experienced  international opening batsman. With respect to Gus, I think I know which of the two I would choose to face fresh bowlers with a new ball.

With our batting line up we should get a first innings lead against this lot. I hope Batty gave Atkinson a bollocking for that awful shot
in the last over brainless.

Steve wrote:With our batting line up we should get a first innings lead against this lot. I hope Batty gave Atkinson a bollocking for that awful shot
in the last over brainless.

And Burns too for his shot?

I hope we bat better than we bowled,we one or two exceptions. I think we underestimated Kent and thought it would be a walkover!

I didnt see the Burns shot Gus. What happened?

Steve wrote:I didnt see the Burns shot Gus. What happened?

Caught fine leg hooking

The moto of this is not to underestimate your opponents, daft shots at the end. We didn't bowl very well after we had them 5 down for 40 odd, especially in the last session. Moriaty has not had much 1st Team cricket and bowled a lot of tosh, but unless he's injured, Lawes should have played and Jacks bowled more because with respect to the Professor, Jacks is just as good or bad depending on your point of view. Let's see what Latham can do in the morning.

Burns should be told to go back to his natural game that made him score all those runs a few years ago. He will never play for England whilst the current
captain and coach are there. He is not a big hitter of the ball as he never makes our T20 squad. Dont try and play the Baz Ball style. He cant do it and its
pointless as he wont get back in the test side so no point.

Just my opinion by the way!!

The pitch seems poor giving no assistance to any bowler, totally dead. The wickets that fell were mostly given away. Pleased to see The Professor though he did not bowl particularly well. We have dropped a dreadful number of catches recently, might have dismissed Kent for 200 if we had held our catches.

Chinaman wrote:The moto of this is not to underestimate your opponents, daft shots at the end. We didn't bowl very well after we had them 5 down for 40 odd, especially in the last session. Moriaty has not had much 1st Team cricket and bowled a lot of tosh, but unless he's injured, Lawes should have played and Jacks bowled more because with respect to the Professor, Jacks is just as good or bad depending on your point of view. Let's see what Latham can do in the morning.

Hi China - I agree with your general comment about not underestimating opponents and our poor performance today although I'll reserve judgement on whether Moriarty merited his place until after Kent's second dig.

I was glad to see Moriarty picked, but whichever of the seamers had been left out was going to be desperately unlucky: all have been in fine form. Abbott is worth a place for his batting alone right now.

The one man who I think would have broken the Kent 9th wicket stand was Tom Lawes. He does it every time when wickets are elusive.

Jackers wrote:Gus Atkinson can bat, but he doesn't strike me as a natural night-watchman. Dan Worrall likewise. Of the options available, I wonder whether Dan Moriarty might have been the best choice? Bottom line: if you don't have someone in your tail who is suited to the role in terms of technique and temperament, it is best not to deploy one.

I'm rarely keen to use a night watchman. I know there are instances of it coming off to good effect but so often it just results in a further wicket the same evening or early the next morning to boost the spirits of the bowling side. It also increases the chances of a 'proper' batsman being left stranded when the 10th wicket falls.

Imo, the captain should back his batsman to go out and play whilst the batsman should support his captain and his team and do just that.

A good days batting is needed after the shambles from lunch onwards yesterday if Surrey are to regain control of this game it won't be easy.

11-45 start.

Batting may be very difficult with a rain-affected pitch and in thundery conditions. They are still showing lunch at 1pm...surely it will be later?

Alex! wrote:How on fucking Earth are Kent a Div 1 side

I don’t know you Alex but I do know from here that you’ve been watching cricket for a long time. And with this, it makes comments like the above all the more surprising. The cricket gods come at you fast if you anger them.

That last wicket, the ball just stopped on him. I'm not there today but was this pitch left uncovered when it rained? 152 to avoid the follow on!

Cee Gee wrote:

Alex! wrote:How on fucking Earth are Kent a Div 1 side

I don’t know you Alex but I do know from here that you’ve been watching cricket for a long time. And with this, it makes comments like the above all the more surprising. The cricket gods come at you fast if you anger them.

Eh maybe. I mean, they must be 2nd from bottom for a reason...

We have been 2nd best in this game ever since lunch yesterday and it doesn't look like improving.

What an awful morning. Especially with Warwickshire piling on the runs at Notts.

One wonders how well protected the pitch was by Kent’s covers?

dougieginn wrote:One wonders how well protected the pitch was by Kent’s covers?

Quite. Strikes me there is moisture under the pitch. This game could be over quickly.